Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “textured surfaces”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,161 records · Page 65
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applicability of Micro X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy to Astromaterials Curation and Research

Introduction: The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) curates NASA’s astromaterial sample collections which includes: Apollo samples, Luna samples, Ant-arctic meteorites, cosmic dust particles, microparticle impacts into space-flown materials, Genesis solar wind atoms, Stardust comet Wild-2 particles, Stardust inter-stellar particles, Hayabusa asteroid Itokawa particles, Hayabusa 2 asteroid Ryugu particles, and future OSIRIS-Rex asteroid Bennu particles (landing in Sep-tember, 2023) [1–3]. To enhance JSC’s advanced cu-ration capabilities, we have recently installed a high-performance micro-X-ray fluorescence (µXRF) spec-trometer to assist in sample characterization through rapid, non-destructive, in-situ elemental analyses that do not require the sample preparation protocols (i.e., polishing and carbon-coating) commonly needed for electron beam analyses. With this new instrument, we are capable of detecting all elements down to carbon in a variable-pressure or He-purged chamber for anal-ysis of a wide range of sample types. Here we describe the instrumental set-up, capabilities, and applicability of µXRF analysis to astromaterials curation and re-search. Instrumentation and Methodology: The X-ray fluorescence and computed tomography lab (X-FaCT) lab at JSC is now equipped with a Bruker M4 Tornado Plus µXRF (Fig. 1). This system is an energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometer equipped with two 60 mm2 silicon drift detectors (SDD) that are able to be used simulta-neously for output count rates ~500,000 cps. New light element windows allow detecting and analyzing the entire elemental range from carbon to americium. Two x-ray tubes (micro-focus Rh with polycapillary lenses and W with collimators of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.5 mm) with max excitation parameters of 50 kV, 30 W and 50 kV, 40 W, respectively, allow for more flexibility of the analysis of high energy lines. The motorized X-Y-Z stage has a mapping range of 190 x 160 mm and can support samples up to 7 kg (~15.5 lbs) and a height of 120 mm [4]. Analytical modes include elemental analysis (down to ~20 µm spot size) via point, line, or area of bulk materials (rock surfaces, thin sections, thick sections, etc.) as well as coating analysis (determination of thickness and composition) of samples. This system has a variable vacuum chamber (1 mbar to 1 atm) that is also equipped with a He-purge system which accommodates vacuum sensitive samples while still allowing detection of light elements at atmospheric pressure. Utility and Applicability of µXRF in Astro-materials research and exploration science (ARES): Elemental analysis using µXRF is commonly em-ployed for both terrestrial and planetary geological science disciplines [5]. It is especially useful for analy-sis of astromaterials given the limited sample prepara-tion required, which is not feasible for certain materi-als. Here we show select applications of µXRF anal-yses of astromaterials that can, have, and will be done at JSC’s X-FaCT lab. Point analysis: In-situ spot analyses (~20 µm spot size) on a cut slab of Martian meteorite NWA 10922 allowed for the discovery, qualitative elemental analy-sis and determination of different feldspar minerals [6]. These point analyses served as an effective prelim-inary step for subsequent quantitative analyses. Ana-lytical standards can be employed for more accurate quantification of µXRF spot analyses. Area analysis: This analytical mode measures all detectable elements (from C to Am) at each pixel (>5 µm pixel size) in a user-defined area. The results are shown as elemental maps which can be extracted as 16-bit TIFF’s for further data processing. In Fig. 2. we show elemental distribution maps of the high-Ti basalt 73001,531 that have been processed using ImageJ software. From these maps you can accurately and quickly (this map took ~50 mins.) identify mineral components, such as pyroxene, plagioclase, oxides, and phosphates, compositional zoning, and mineral textures. Detection of high-Z phases: µXRF techniques are es-pecially effective at analyzing trace minerals with high-atomic-number (high-Z) elements because the high-energy characteristic X-rays used (relative to SEM EDS) allow for mapping of K lines in elements up to La (typically SEM maps use L X-ray lines for elements >Zn, and these can often have interferences). Thus, µXRF is especially suited for identifying minerals like zircon, baddeleyite, REE-rich phosphates, Fe-rich met-als, oxides, sulfides, and phosphides [4]. In Fig. 3 we show elemental distribution maps for 73001,530 where we are able to correlate the original video image with, Zr, Si, Y and Hf elemental maps together identi-fying the location of a zircon. In this location you would expect lower Si compared to surrounding mate-rial, as well as higher Zr, Y, and Hf content compared to surrounding material, all of which is confirmed by our XRF ele-mental distribution maps (Figure 2.) Conclusions: The new M4 Tornado Plus µXRF within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation office at NASA JSC allows for rapid and non-destructive elemental analysis of astromaterials with limited or no sample preparation. µXRF analyses pro-vide crucial compositional knowledge for the prelimi-nary examination and curation of astromaterials. This instrument enhances the advanced curation capabili-ties in the X-FaCT laboratory at JSC by allowing pro-ductive, cohesive, and non-destructive multi-modal x-ray analyses on astromaterial samples, which is neces-sary for the comprehensive curation and study of our current and future astromaterial collections. Addition-ally, µXRF can provide complimentary information to researchers for studies on astromaterials. References: [1] Allen, C. et al., (2011). Chemie De Erde Geochemistry, 71, 1-20. [2] McCubbin, F. M. et al., (2016) 47th LPSC, abstract #2668 [3] Zeigler, R. A. et al., (2017) 48th LPSC, abstract #2772 [4] Bruker User Manual [5] Young et al., (2016) Appl. Geochemistry, 72, 77-87 [6] Mor-ris, R. V. et al., (2023) 54th LPSC.

E W O'Neal↗
DOE OSTI2025

Experimental signature of layer skyrmions and implications for band topology in twisted WSe 2 bilayers

Twisted homobilayers of transition-metal dichalcogenides have been established as an ideal platform for studying strong correlation phenomena, as exemplified by the recent discovery of fractional Chern insulator states in twisted MoTe 2 , as well as Chern insulators and unconventional superconductivity in twisted WSe 2 . In these systems, a non-trivial topology in the strongly layer-hybridized regime can arise from a spatial patterning of interlayer tunnelling amplitudes and layer-dependent potentials that yields a lattice of layer skyrmions. Here, in this work, we report experimental signatures of skyrmion textures in the layer degree of freedom of rhombohedral-stacked twisted WSe 2 homobilayers. Using scanning tunnelling spectroscopy that separately resolves the Γ-valley and K-valley moiré electronic states, we reveal opposite layer polarizations of the K valley at two different lattice sites with opposite stacking order within the moiré unit cell. These findings are consistent with the theoretically predicted layer-skyrmion texture. We also use our experimental results to parameterize a common continuum model of moiré bands in twisted bilayers, further establishing a direct correlation between the shape of the local density of states in real space and the topology of the topmost moiré band.

electronic properties and materials↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pink Spinel in Apollo Impact Melt Rock 68815: Implications for Mg-Suite Magmatism

Introduction: Magnesian rocks from the lunar highlands are collectively termed the Mg-suite. Characterized by high (>60) Mg# (molar 100×Mg/[Mg+Fe]) in mafic phases and calcic plagioclase, these rocks are plutonic to hypabyssal in origin, and include a range of bulk mineralogies such as troctolites, dunites, norites, gabbronorites, and spinel troctolites [1]. These Mg-suite lithologies have distinct trace element concentrations and ratios that differentiate them from other lunar rock types. These rocks are ancient, generally dated to between 4.5 and 4.1 Ga, although it is unknown if this represents the full range of Mg-suite ages [1–2]. Among the Mg-suite lithologies, the spinel troctolites are relatively rare, to date only found in polymict breccias [3]. Spinel troctolites, as their name suggests, consist of calcic plagioclase and forsteritic olivine, with minor amounts of spinel (MgAl2O4), ± pyroxene and cordierite [1,4]. This form of spinel is often called ‘pink’ spinel because of its appearance in thin section under plane polarized light (PPL; Fig. 1), due to minor amounts of Cr. Spinel troctolites are generally plutonic or hypabyssal in origin (subsequently exhumed and incorporated into polymict breccias), or formed through impact processes (e.g., crystalline impact melt) [5]. A spinel-rich lithology has also been found in the Moscoviense region of the Moon via the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) and lacks other mafic phases [6]. Finally, while the Mg-suite sampled thus far consists of plutonic (or hypabyssal) rocks, the question remains if such magmas could have erupted on the surface of the Moon [7]. These magmas have much lower density than mare basalts, but little sample or remote sensing evidence has been found to support the idea that extrusive Mg-suite volcanism occurred [7]. Here, we present a coordinated microanalytical study of spinel-bearing lithic and mineral clasts found in Apollo sample 68815. These data will be used to understand their petrogenesis (magmatic or impact) and modification histories, and to shed light on the existence of volcanic Mg-suite rocks. Sample Description: Apollo sample 68815 is a polymict impact melt breccia containing a variety of lithic and mineral fragments embedded in devitrified impact melt. This sample was chipped off the top of a boulder at Station 8 during the Apollo 16 mission and had an original weight of nearly 1.8 kg. In this study, we investigated two polished thin sections of 68815: 68815,17 and 68815,148, both containing spinel. Methods: The thin sections of 68815 were studied using optical light microscopy (PPL, cross-polarized light, and reflected light) with a Keyence VHX-7100 Digital Microscope. Each section was then X-ray mapped for 13–14 elements using a Cameca SX100 electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) located in the Kuiper Materials Imaging and Characterization Facility (KMICF) at the University of Arizona. We have obtained geochemical information about the phases (olivine, plagioclase, spinel, pyroxene) in the thin sections also using the EPMA. In addition, we have used ThermoScientific Helios NanoLab 660 Focused-Ion-Beam Scanning-Electron Microscope (FIB-SEM) and a Hitachi S-4800 SEM (both in KMICF) to obtain backscattered electron (BSE) images and energy dispersive Xray spectrometry (EDS) maps of areas of interest. Using a JEOL 7900F SEM at the Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science (ARES) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), we have obtained electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) maps of the spinel-bearing portions of the thin sections. The EBSD data were collected under beam conditions of 20 kV, and ~90 μA, with step sizes varying from 0.05 to 2 μm. Following EBSD data collection, we processed the data using AZtecCrystal and MTEX, a free MATLAB toolbox. Results: We have found clasts with subophitic textures, that consist of primarily olivine and plagioclase, with minor amounts of pink Mg-Al spinel and pyroxene (Fig. 1). These clasts are up to ~1 mm in length and contain spinels up to 50 μm across. We have additionally identified pink Mg-Al spinels within the impact melt (i.e., not contained in lithic clasts) in both thin sections. In one instance, a single spinel grain is approximately 300 μm across (Fig. 1b, 2). The spinel fragments embedded in impact melt have varying compositions, typically distinct from the compositions of spinels in the lithic clasts. Spinel-Bearing Clasts: Ten lithic clasts with similar textures and mineral compositions were identified between 68815,17 (two clasts) and ,148 (eight clasts). These clasts fall into two groups. The first has skeletal olivine with intergranular plagioclase, with minor amounts of pyroxene and spinel (Fig. 1a, 2c, 2d). The spinel in these clasts are found amid the plagioclase. The second group have an intergranular texture of olivine and plagioclase, again with minor spinel and pyroxene. The second group may contain spinels surrounded by plagioclase, and spinels enclosed in olivine. Spinels located within both clast types range from no apparent Cr zoning, to reverse zoning (Cr-enrichment inward; Fig. 2d), to normal zoning (Cr-enrichment outward). In the clasts thus far investigated with EPMA, plagioclase compositions range from An# (molar 100×Ca/[Ca+Na+K]) 92–96. Olivine Mg# ranged from 77 to 94, while pyroxene had Mg# from 54–84. Spinel in the clasts have Cr# (molar 100×Cr/[Cr+Al]) 2–4 and Mg# 88–91, which is within the range of pristine and plutonic spinel troctolites [8]. Isolated Spinels: These crystals are generally euhedral to subhedral, and can exhibit reverse Cr zoning (Cr enrichment inward) or no apparent Cr zoning. The spinels thus far investigated via EPMA have Cr# 9–14 and Mg# 65–82. The Cr# for these spinels is within the range reported by [8], but have lower Mg#. Future Work: We will continue to process the EBSD data for these lithic and mineral clasts. We will also continue to characterize these clasts using EPMA and SEM. By thoroughly characterizing the various spinels and spinel-bearing clasts, we aim to constrain the petrogenesis of these minerals and rock fragments. Acknowledgments: We thank NASA for the loan of these thin sections. We thank Ken Domanik and Jerry Chang for their support with data collection. Work was supported by a University of Arizona RII Core Facilities Pilot Program grant and start-up funds to JJB. We acknowledge support from NASA’s Planetary Science Research program for analysis performed at JSC. References: [1] Shearer C. K. et al. (2015) Am. Min. 100, 294–325. [2] Borg L. E. et al. (2020) GCA 290, 312–332. [3] Warren P. H. (1993) Am. Min. 78, 360–376. [4] Dymek R. F. et al. (1976) LPS VII, 2335–2378. [5] Treiman et al. (2019) Am. Min. 104, 370–384. [6] Pieters et al. (2011) JGR: Plan. 116:E00G08. [7] Prissel et al. (2016) Icarus 277, 319–329. [8] Prissel et al. (2016) Am. Min. 101, 1624–1635.

spinel↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TRIDENT Drill Validation at Mars and Lunar Analog Field Sites

Drilling on Earth is typically a human-intensive activity. Drilling on other planets is further complicated by the lack of prior local field surveys of their target area, hence blindly drilling into uncertain target rocks. Field conditions on the Moon or Mars are also different than for shallow drilling on Earth: lower temperatures and pressures, less power available, low masses (hence less weight-on-bit). Given the cost of transport from Earth, no drilling muds or working fluids are likely to be available to carry away cuttings. And impact-gardened regolith and dust vary mechanically and texturally from most terrestrial soils. The Regolith and Ice Drill for Exploration of New Terrains (TRIDENT) is a rotary-percussive 1m-class drill from Honeybee Robotics. It is low-power (rotary and percussive actuators are 200 W each) and lightweight (<20 kg) with the maximum weight on bit limited to 200 N. TRIDENT has been manifested for the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) and PRIME-1 lunar south pole missions in 2024, has previously been field tested at a hot, dry analog site in the Atacama Desert, and in lunar conditions in thermal vacuum chamber tests. TRIDENT was also part of the 2019 Icebreaker Mars Discovery proposal, as well as in the Mars Life Explorer concept. During ARADS tests, drill control and fault recovery automation software enabled hands-off operations of a rover-mounted TRIDENT drill. TRIDENT Drill Analog Site Validation: Past TRIDENT tests in thermal vacuum (TVAC) chambers targeted containers of manufactured lunar simulants with added volatiles. 2022 TRIDENT ambient testing at NASA Ames drilled into cemented lunar simulant materials. Low cuttings-permeability led to cuttings buildup, and drill choking and binding was observed. The Atacama analog site in ARADS had desiccated unconsolidated sediments that did not challenge the TRIDENT design. However, lunar polar regolith is expected to be diverse and heterogeneous with varying clast sizes, with abundant impactites and perhaps subsurface ice deposits. Neither the simulants nor Atacama testing had completely covered the TRIDENT-targeted field characteristics, motivating further analog tests prior to the planned lunar missions. To gain more insight into the behavior of the TRIDENT hardware in diverse impactites and subsurface ice, and to verify the software automation in that environment, in August 2023 TRIDENT was brought to Haughton Crater, a field analog site in the Canadian Arctic. In September 2023 the same drill was brought to the Bishop Tuff in southern California to verify whether drilling binding behaviors previously seen in lunar simulant testing would be observed in naturally occurring fine-grained massive layers. The ~22 Ma Haughton Crater impact structure is located at 75 ̊22’ N, 89 ̊41’ W, on northwestern Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada. Numerous deposits of pale-grey crater-fill polymictic impact-melt breccia are found within the crater with a typical thickness reaching ~125 m or greater and covering ~60 km -2 . An approximately 600m-thick permafrost layer is also present with ice typically found within 0.5-0.6m of the surface. The volcanic tableland north of Bishop, CA exposes densely welded tuff laid down during the eruption that created the Long Valley Caldera at approximately 0.76 Ma. Extensional faults and the Owens River gorge expose cross-sections across the plateau. The area is viewed as an analog site for Mars features believed to be of pyroclastic origin. Results: Haughton Crater.Drilling tests were conducted 8-13 August 2023 at a previously undisturbed area separated 5-10 m from past years’ Drill Hill test sites (75.4208, -089.7613). In six days, TRIDENT drilled 8 holes to nearly 1 m depth each, totaling 7.80 m. The active layer/ice boundary was at ~67 cm depth, with a total of approximately 2.4 m drilled into ice or ice-cemented impact breccia. During drilling, five drill fault states were observed and successfully recovered. Holes 23-1, 4 and 7 were drilled under manual control, using Honeybee’s Thorax user interface. Holes 23-5, 6, and 8 were drilled with the Ames IBexec automated drilling control software. TRIDENT was observed to have little difficulty in the thawed uncemented impact breccia above the active layer boundary, but required percussion to make slower headway in the ice-cemented breccia. In Hole 23-7 (Fig.1), drilling slowed down in a massive unit just above the active-layer boundary (perhaps a large rock extending into the ice-cementation?), with only 7cm progress made in 27 minutes of high auger torque and constant percussion, leading to a choking fault and then a binding fault. A similar pattern had been observed in TRIDENT Rio Tinto test data from 2017 [6] as well as in the 2022laboratory tests.Bishop Tuff.A team from NASA Ames and the US Geological Survey deployed the same TRIDENT drill to Bishop Sites 1B and 1C (37.4203, -118.4289; 37.4265, -118.4215) on 13-16 September 2023, on the Bishop Tuff plateau. A third drill site was used 17-18 September 2023(37.4598, -118.3667) in an abandoned pumice mine. Four holes (totaling 2.5m depth) were drilled into the fine-grained, meters-thick tuff units at Sites 1B and 1C, and a further two boreholes (totaling 1.98m depth) were made at the pumice site. Drill behavior in the tuff below 10 cm depth was similar to that seen at 65-74 cm depth in Haughton Hole 23-7 (Fig. 1) and that seen in the 2022 lab simulant drilling. Drill safety torque limits were exceeded multiple times resulting in drill stops downhole. These freezes then required external added torques (with a pipe wrench) to resume rotation, to unstick the drill for withdrawal. To prevent this choking and binding behavior we found that more-frequent cuttings removal was necessary, e.g., reducing the “drill bite” size from the nominal 10 cm to 2 cm per bite --bringing the auger up to the surface more frequently, as seen in Bishop Site 1C Hole 2 (Fig.2). This permitted slow progress without drill binding and without external interventions. Conversely, TRIDENT drilling in the more porous pumice target material showed no cuttings buildup issue, and single bites as large as 40 cm were demonstrated. Discussion: We observed that TRIDENT easily penetrated unconsolidated heterogeneous soils (both above the active layer boundary at Haughton and previously in the Atacama). Cemented or consolidated targets that were cuttings-permeable (icy impact breccia, pumice) required more energy applied and percussion. However, in non-cuttings-permeable targets (welded microporous tuff, cemented simulants, boulder) TRIDENT was observed to be prone to excessive cuttings accumulation leading to choking/binding faults and stalling. The wedge cutting bit, used by TRIDENT in field tests and in its flight versions, pulverizes the target rock and creates fine cuttings that ideally are transported up the auger spirals for removal. In porous, fractured or vesicular target materials (such as at the Bishop pumice site) a significant portion of the cuttings are pushed aside, but for non-fractured, microporous targets the cuttings remain in the borehole and accumulate. Rock powder is relatively incompressible as a working fluid at only 100-200N downward force (TRIDENT limits) and hence eventual drilling progress slows or stops. Our recommended strategy for improving TRIDENT cuttings removal in massive target units with low cuttings-permeability is to reduce TRIDENT bite sizes when encountering these units, from 10cm to as little as 1-2cm, to effectively bail the accumulating cuttings. This approach was demonstrated to reduce choking and allowed slow progress to continue in cuttings-impermeable microporous target units (viz. the Bishop tuff in our September 2023 tests or cemented simulants in 2022 ambient tests).

robotic drilling↗
NASA NTRS2021

Cryovolcanic flooding in Viking Terra on Pluto

A prominent fossa trough (Uncama Fossa) and adjacent 28-km diameter impact crater (Hardie) in Pluto's Viking Terra, as seen in the high-resolution images from the New Horizons spacecraft, show morphological evidence of in-filling with a material of uniform texture and red-brown color. A linear fissure parallel to the trough may be the source of a fountaining event yielding a cryoclastic deposit having the same composition and color properties as is found in the trough and crater. Spectral maps of this region with the New Horizons LEISA instrument reveal the spectral signature of H2O ice in these structures and in distributed patches in the adjacent terrain in Viking Terra. A detailed statistical analysis of the spectral maps shows that the colored H2O ice filling material also carries the 2.2-μm signature of an ammoniated component that may be an ammonia hydrate (NH3·nH2O) or an ammoniated salt. This paper advances the view that the crater and fossa trough have been flooded by a cryolava debouched from Pluto's interior along fault lines in the trough and in the floor of the impact crater. The now frozen cryolava consisted of liquid H2O infused with the red-brown pigment presumed to be a tholin, and one or more ammoniated compounds. Although the abundances of the pigment and ammoniated compounds entrained in, or possibly covering, the H2O ice are unknown, the strong spectral bands of the H2O ice are clearly visible. In consideration of the factors in Pluto's space environment that are known to destroy ammonia and ammonia-water mixtures, the age of the exposure is of order ≤109 years. Ammoniated salts may be more robust, and laboratory investigations of these compounds are needed.

Pluto↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗